"That's the difference between producing content and producing journalism." Quite a bold, powerful statement. I wholeheartedly agree that there is a distinct difference between the two, but not that one is "bad" and the other is "good"
Instead, I would argue that they serve different ends.
Producing "content" is the quick and easy, but not "bad." Producing content to satisfy the fleeting curiosity of the masses is not "bad," it is simply not going to produce quality work. It is a perfectly valid business though. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about producing content that will satiate an individual's quick desire to get a few facts about something topical.
On the other hand, producing "journalism" should not be considered "good" simply b/c it holds itself to a higher standard. Yes, it may produce better work, but that alone does not make it a viable business plan.
Associated Content should not be condemned simply because it does not produce quality content. AC serves a specific niche well and profits from that service. How is that evil?
Instead, I would argue that they serve different ends.
Producing "content" is the quick and easy, but not "bad." Producing content to satisfy the fleeting curiosity of the masses is not "bad," it is simply not going to produce quality work. It is a perfectly valid business though. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about producing content that will satiate an individual's quick desire to get a few facts about something topical.
On the other hand, producing "journalism" should not be considered "good" simply b/c it holds itself to a higher standard. Yes, it may produce better work, but that alone does not make it a viable business plan.
Associated Content should not be condemned simply because it does not produce quality content. AC serves a specific niche well and profits from that service. How is that evil?